The above photograph is of Woolfie (courtesy of Mark LaFlamme). The bottom three are of the “Maine Mystery Beast” (courtesy of Michelle O’Donnell).

Click on image for full-size version

Please click on image for full-size version

Click on image for full-size version

What do you think? Do they match?

About Loren ColemanLoren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.

Okay, so it’s not the same animal, but I can see NOTHING that makes the “Maine Mystery Beast” appear to be anything but a dog. Certainly it has k9 features, from its trunk to its back legs and tail. It is obviously not a wolf or a fox, so that leaves only a domestic dog. As far as snout length is concerned, domestic dogs have ssnouts ranging from an English Bulldog to an Afghan Hound and everything in between.

I think they look quite similar. The pics are all different angles, and depending on how a pic is taken, the animal’s features can look different. Even on my own dog, one pic his snout can look quite short and another pic taken 5 minutes later, due to the lighting and angle, can look much longer than it is.

The top pic of Woolfie alive also looks like a very old pic… meaning that he may currently look more aged than he did in the old photo.

Some black dogs do get grayish with age. And if I remember correctly in the previous article, didn’t the owner mention that her dog was actually charcoal gray and not pure black? The dead dog is definitely more charcoal than black.

The dead dog looks, to me, like a dusty older version of the pup in the ‘alive’ picture.

But also it was mentioned the gender may be different so that would prove it wasn’t the same dog anyway. They just may look similar.

Chow mixes are *very* common mixes. And chows can have very short snouts (some dogs barely have snouts at all. Look at pugs) So snout length is no indication at all on whether something is a dog or not b/c a dog’s snout can be any length.

I have seen plenty of chow mixes that look similar to the dog(s) pictured here. Small-medium dogs with short snouts, small ears, and a fuzzy black/charcoal coat. So even if the dogs look similar, with a common mix like Chow i could still likely just be a different dog.

Heck, if her dog was originally found as a stray, there’s that chance it was part of an outdoor-born litter… meaning she had siblings that possibly look alot like her wandering around the streets.

Either way, the dead animal is a DOG. People get too used to the very common breeds (i.e. labs, shepherds, etc.) that a dog like this may look unusual and un-dog-like to them if they don’t know much about the different breeds out there.

Domesticated dogs are so drastically varied in appearance. There are hundreds of different unique breeds. My own dog (a Shiba Inu) is always mistaken by people as a fox, or dingo, or some random wild animal b/c they have never seen a Shiba before.

So with all the unusual breeds out there, someone who isn’t familiar with dog diversity can mistaken a common canine as a unknown beast.

Hmmm. Could be. The two are similar enough that I think it’s possible they are one and the same. If they are the same animal, then the dewclaws must have grown out quite a bit between the time the photo of Woolfie was made and the time the dead dog was photographed. Of course, tissues dehydrate and shrink back after death, so that would make those dewclaws appear longer in death than they had on the living dog, but even taking that into consideration those dewclaws were awfully long.

The living dog in the picture here is obviously a blue (charcoal) chow mix, and so is the dead one. How many blue chow mixed breeds were running loose in that area? Probably not more than one.

Even if it’s the same dog I don’t see why it matters now. The poor thing’s dead. It’s a shame that it was neglected and allowed to roam at large until it ended up as roadkill.

It is obvious that these are both domestic dogs, but the photos appear to represent two different individuals. I, too, was convinced of this by the differing snout length.

I agree with others who have said that the “mutant” does not appear to have any characteristics that would be abnormal for a domestic dog. In breeding dogs, we have selected for some peculiar morphology and behavior patterns. When breeds representing different extremes mate randomly, the resulting offspring may not look or behave like the typical golden retriever or “Heinz 57″ mutt, but they still are members of the same species. Domestic dogs, like many other animals, make a wider variety of sounds than most people are aware of. There are even some breeds, such as the Basenji (from Africa) that do not bark and instead make other noises.

All of us who are interested in cryptozoology need to become more familiar with the diversity that exists in common, known animals, sick and healthy, living and dead. When photos of dead dogs are purported to represent potentially unknown animals, the evidence for these animals’ possible existence is undermined.